Share buybacks do not create value and the notion that a company can invest in its own stock is nonsense

Ever since I graduated business school – which was a long time ago – I’ve been having discussions and arguments as to whether or not share buybacks (SBB) create value. Despite the fact that many impartial studies have demonstrated and many mathematical proofs have been proffered that SBB don’t create value, astonishingly people continue to emphatically argue that SBB create value. This is not to say that SBB cannot be used to return truly unused capital back to shareholders, but we believe that SBB should be an action of last resort. Regardless, the conclusion: SBB cannot and, therefore, do not create shareholder value.
Even CEOs and CFOs of many companies can’t seem to bring themselves to stop SBB despite all of the evidence that companies cannot create value by buying back their own shares. And, even when it is demonstrated to these managements that there are far better ways to utilize the cash, managements still have reservations about ending their SBB program.
Therefore, I’m hoping that I can end this resistance to ending SBB through this editorial tutorial. The following lists arguments that we’ve encountered for why SBB create value for shareholders:
1) The P/E argument: SBB reduce share count, which increases EPS, and given the same multiple, the stock price must go up;
2) Investing in the company’s own stock creates value for shareholders: Companies can buy their stock at a low price and sell it at a higher price, which creates value;
3) Higher ROE means higher valuation: By reducing the amount of equity on the balance sheet, this raises the ROE on the returns from company projects, for which investors give the stock a higher valuation; and
4) Excess cash returned: This point is about returning excess cash to investors not about shareholder value.

Continue Reading →

Letter to FERC outlining our thoughts on how to redesign wholesale power market pricing mechanism

For years, I have been advocating for a wholesale change in how power is priced in the wholesale electricity markets. And, I wish to be heard on this matter, because I believe that my views are not only intelligent and cogent, but also on-point to a future grid that is both reliable and resilient.

From my perspective, there are five main issues that must be resolved to maintain a grid that is both reliable and resilient for the long-term:
Renewable power disruption of wholesale power pricing
Proper compensation of reliability and resiliency characteristics of generation
No regression to “cost-of-service” rates
No “freebies” to businesses
Redesign must be based on market principals

Continue Reading →

Summary and analysis of the 187 page DOE report titled “Staff Report to the Secretary on Electricity Markets and Reliability” dated August 2017 and summary and analysis of the 6 page PJM report titled “Energy Price Formation and Valuing Flexibility” dated June 15, 2017

DOE report titled “Staff Report to the Secretary on Electricity Markets and Reliability” dated August 2017, and
Summary of the 6 page PJM report titled “Energy Price Formation and Valuing Flexibility” dated June 15, 2017

Following are some of the highlights:

Changing circumstances are challenging current reliability:
Energy efficiency is done:
Retired plants were mostly baseload-type plants:
Grid operators must place and are placing increasing premium on flexible resources
More focus on resiliency is needed:
Current wholesale pricing inadequate for modern grid:
Cooperation between power and pipeline sectors is becoming crucial to reliability and resiliency, especially in winter,
Four issues that threaten grid reliability due to forced early retirements:

Our conclusion: While we believe that the DOE Report is critical to understanding the evolving electricity market, we believe that there are a number of issues that may be challenged:

Natural gas isn’t the main culprit for plant closures, in our opinion
Market forces are enough:
While DOE is concerned about natural gas price spikes, we’re not:
Decoupling of economic output and power demand is not solely a function of efficiency, in our opinion:

We were disappointed by the fact that the DOE did not incorporate analysis from potential accelerated economic activity, which we expect that we believe will accelerate demand

Continue Reading →

As expected, the EPA repealed the Clean Power Plan (CPP); asks industry to help write a new regulation

CPP repealed: As expected, the Administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Mr. Scott Pruitt, repealed the Obama-era CPP regulation aimed at forcing generators to reduce CO2 emissions by 32% from 2005 levels by 2030
CPP was like forcing car manufacturers to pay Tesla: The only way to achieve the CPP objective would have been for coal-fired generators to buy Renewable Energy Credits (REC) to offset CO2 emissions from its own plants, which is tantamount to subsidizing competitors’ generation

This would be equivalent to car manufacturers paying Tesla $X/car for every non-electric car that they sell to the consumers

EPA asks the industry for help in writing new regulations but what could be recommended? This was not expected. Regardless, we would expect that any proposed recommendations would involve inside-the-fence solutions
Conclusion: We are not surprised at the repeal of CPP; however, we are somewhat puzzled by the EPA’s request of the power industry to help it write new regulations regarding CO2.

Continue Reading →

The Logic NY Fed Court Decision to Uphold ZECs is Spurious

The US District Court of the Southern District of New York (Fed District Court) yesterday ruled through New York Southern District Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed all challenges to New York’s Zero Emissions Credit (ZEC) program
The decision by Judge Caproni, though seemingly logical, is actually spurious, in our opinion. The decision was based on the following logic and comparison:
While we do appreciate Judge Caproni’s position and interpretation of the law, we note several inconsistencies in the Judge’s arguments

By acknowledging that financial subsidies do allow otherwise uncompetitive sources of generation to be built, Judge Caproni is acknowledging that financial subsidies do distort market pricing because it increase supply into the market relative to demand, which by definition, ALWAYS NEGATIVELY affects pricing

Conclusion: Therefore, we continue to believe that as the case is appealed to higher judicial authority, we maintain that the most rational outcome is the reversal of both NY and IL subsidies for nuclear power. However,

Continue Reading →